Personally I find looking at photos of bands/artists performing live hideously dull. A posed photoshoot of the band, now this can be interesting as many are inventive and concept also comes into play. Live photos though, it's just someone holding a bit of equipment and looking like they are bored.
I really don't understand how live photos serve any purpose. Sure, if you were there it can be nice to bring back memories, but other than that, they just seem redundant. Yet there are regular photosets published on DiS and many other sites of bands performing live. Also, notice how many bloody photographers there are down by the stage at gigs? Who even looks at all these photos that are taken? Every other music fan also claims to be a bloody "live photographer" as a hobby (or god forbid a profession). Why would you take photos of people in a dark room with rubbish lighting if you like taking photographs that much? There are flowers and trees out there just begging to be photographed.
What particularly cracks me up is when a band plays its best song, or reaches a climax, this is when the camera shutters go off, like as if the intensity of the performance right then will be transferred onto the resulting photo. This of course is bollocks. You may as well take a photo of the band soundchecking and the end result will be the same.
Someone please explain this to me because these live photos are everywhere now. I would much rather the photographer pointed the camera at their own face and record their expression when they were watching the band play. I feel this would give a much better indication of the band's performance that night anyway. Actually, come to think of it, I much prefer crowd shots than band shots. Much more evocative of the atmosphere at the event in question, I feel. What thinkest thou?